ghostrider
02/23/15 05:09 PM
76.89.120.217
|
Had a thought when reading the other threads.
Why would an ac 2 takes up a lot less critical spots in a mech, then an ac 20 does?
The ac 2 is basically a long barrel sticking out of the mech, which would require alot of bracing to hold the weight in place while sticking out possibly several meters.
But the ac 20 is a short barreled gun, which means it would be more compact. The other cannons have similar issues as well. The gauss rifle should have more criticals needed then an ac 20 since you have the long barrel and the capacitors and such to use the weapon.
This is the 'reason' for the shorter ranges of the larger guns, since the larger shells should have more propellant to shot them just as far.
This also bleeds into the missile launchers as well. The ammo feed on an lrm 20 should be a nightmare compared to the feed system on the ac 20 or any other cannon for that fact.
Unless the ammo bin is on top of the launcher, which still doesn't solve all the problems of feeding all tubes in more then an srm2, you would need multiple ammo 'belts'.
Thoughts?
|
Cray
02/23/15 06:02 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The ammo feed on an lrm 20 should be a nightmare compared to the feed system on the ac 20 or any other cannon for that fact.
Unless the ammo bin is on top of the launcher, which still doesn't solve all the problems of feeding all tubes in more then an srm2, you would need multiple ammo 'belts'.
Thoughts?
Well, you have just found one thing that makes BattleTech blueprints worth something: illustrating how a single feed chute can load an entire missile launcher. See this image of the MadCat and note the serpentine feed for the LRM launcher.
http://www.planet25.com/photos/miscarc/Battletech/madcat_original_205.jpg
You just need to push missiles through a feed chute like shells going to cannon. Unlike a cannon, the missiles stop in front of multiple launch tubes. You've got the benefit of much gentler launch conditions from missiles than the explosion of cannon shell propellant, so it shouldn't be much harm to integrate the feed chute into the launch tubes. Personally, I would've continued that feed chute out the other end of the launcher so you could flush an undesired volley back to its magazine and load another type of missile without needing to reverse the launcher.
As for the crit sizes of launchers and autocannons, that's purely an out-of-game effect: the original writers in the early 1980s eyeballed different sizes of weapons, had some beer and pretzels, and waved their hands at the stats. BattleTech didn't start off with large teams of playtest volunteers.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
02/23/15 09:26 PM
76.89.120.217
|
so the feed just pushes the missiles thru the path (channel), then the whole back of the channel moves forward to lock the missiles in place?
If so, it does make you wonder if the missiles wouldn't get stuck by cocking sideways in there. But I can see the point of the missile being used as a wedge to get them in correctly.
I would also wonder if the ignited propellant wouldn't set of the others as they are loaded into the path/channel.
I do admit I am not that up on engineering. I can figure a very small amount of things out, but nothing I can make any money with.
If you know, just how many of the original staff actually had some ideas about physics and engineering?
They made a good game, but the later reasons why things aren't done different leaves at least me wondering if anything was done without just throwing things out and seeing what stuck.
|